Maria Miller: The Basingstoke rape and sexual abuse centre, along with many other rape crisis centres, does an excellent job to support victims. Why do the Government not do one thing that would really help those centres and adopt a three-year funding cycle, as suggested by colleagues on the Opposition Benches, to try and put an end to the financial uncertainty that so many of those crisis centres still face?

Gary Streeter: Will the Minister commend the work of ChildLine, Devon office of which recently reported a 20 per cent. increase in calls from children over the past three years? Although we know that not every call is genuine, and there can be concern about creating an atmosphere of fear, is it not right that ChildLine provides a fantastic service for children, many of whom are abused by people on whom they should be able to rely? Is it not important that they have a lifeline?

Alan Campbell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and am happy to pay tribute to the work of ChildLine.

Phil Woolas: I am more than happy to engage in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman on the specific figures. However, I note from  The Sunday Times that the hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome to his post, is now against our border controls that involve counting people in and counting them out. He has described that as being evidence of a "Big Brother" state. I ask him whether he is still in favour— [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, he cannot have border controls and make statements such as those that he made on Sunday.

Vernon Coaker: We work hard with the DCLG on the Prevent strategy. We also work hard with the police to ensure that the groups we fund in local areas are the ones which can help us to tackle radical extremism. The Prevent strategy is an important part of our anti-terrorist strategy.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman that this is an extremely important area. It involves taking of difficult decisions about who to fund in a particular local area, but if we want to make a difference, rather than just make ourselves feel better, we do have to take such difficult decisions. We sometimes have to get involved with groups that we might not wish to, but the Prevent strategy, as part of the broader Contest strategy, is successful and it is making a real difference in many communities throughout the country by preventing the radicalisation of vulnerable young people.

Philip Davies: With a 9 per cent. increase in drug offences between July and September 2008, compared with the previous year, is it not clear that the Government have completely failed to get a grip on this problem? Will the Minister accept that the drug treatment and testing orders, which result in huge reoffending rates, have been a complete shambles? Will he say what is going to be done to offer more drug addicts abstinence-based treatment orders, which are the only way forward?

Alan Campbell: The most recently published report, "The impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on levels of crime and disorder", found that crimes involving serious violent crime may have reduced. Local residents were less likely to say that drunken and rowdy behaviour was a problem. The Government announced a new mandatory code of practice to target the most irresponsible retail practices, a £3 million cash injection for crime disorder reduction partnerships and for partnership activities in 190 areas, and a further £1.5 million for police enforcement in priority areas.

Tobias Ellwood: May I invite the Home Secretary for a night out in Bournemouth—either a Friday or a Saturday night, I am flexible? She would see not only what a good job Bournemouth police are doing, but how overstretched they are in dealing with the 20,000 or so visitors who come to the seaside resort and the vibrant town centre. If she came to Bournemouth, she would see that the police are not able to look after the policing in Bournemouth because of overstretch—the police manning formula does not take into consideration tourism or, indeed, the number of visitors. I urge her to come to Bournemouth, to see the problem and to help to remedy it.

Jacqui Smith: I had a couple of good nights out in Bournemouth over the Christmas break, although unfortunately the hon. Gentleman was not with me at the time. I agree with him that the Dorset constabulary are doing an extremely good job, which has resulted in a reduction in crime. They are working hard to ensure that Bournemouth is—as I discovered for myself—a good place to visit as a tourist, but I feel sure that the cut of 38 police officers that would be a consequence of his party's proposed Home Office spending cuts would only make that job more difficult.

Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members

Chris Bryant: I rise to support the motion. First, and most importantly, I must say that I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and his Committee for the work that they have done on this matter. He pointed out that although many Members of this House have wanted to make the change from a dual reporting system to a single reporting system, this has proved to be a rather knotty problem. I believe, as he touched on this, that he would also want to thank the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) and his officials, who have worked very hard. My right hon. Friend has a first-class degree in history from Cambridge, and that is clearly what one needs to be able to deliver reform in this area.  [Interruption.] The Lord Chancellor just pointed out to me that there are no thanks due to him for this.
	We should also pay tribute to the work of the Electoral Commission—in the last few months in particular, it has worked very swiftly and co-ordinated well with the officials of the House—and of the Registrar for Members' Interests and the Clerk of the Committee. They have all worked to bring forward this paper in timely fashion so that it can be considered in line with the Bill this afternoon.

Chris Bryant: There are two elements that I can clarify. First, the House has always made it clear that nobody should be a paid advocate in their work as a Member of Parliament. I understand that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the definition strays close to that. All Members of the House would want to ensure that nobody was paid for performing their function as a Member of Parliament. I should also point out that paragraph 27 continues:
	"In addition the Member should register any clients of the consultancy which he or she knows have benefited from such advice."
	I could not see on the register any such registration of the clients of the consultancy, merely that of the consultancy.
	In addition, I want to refer to one other point of which hon. Members might not have been aware. In paragraph 34, the code now makes it absolutely clear that
	"if a fundraising event raises more than £1000, a Member benefiting should register the event".
	I think that that is possibly a new category of registration to which Members will have to commit themselves and I note that there have not been many such events registered in Register of Members' Interests thus far.
	I want to refer briefly to the thresholds. In categories 5, 6 and 7, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said, it is right that the registration threshold should remain at 1 per cent. of our salary. However, in relation to sponsorship under category 4 where the benefit does not come directly into our pockets but to our constituency associations, our constituency Labour parties or whatever organisation there might be, the law specifies that the threshold should be £1,000. It seems sensible, just in case the law were ever to change, that we should be aligned directly with the law rather than with the specific figure of £1,000. That is why the motion refers to that. We might also want to consider whether the £200 threshold at which one has to check whether a donation is from a permissible source, has to return it if it is not and has to register it with the Electoral Commission should be aligned with the legal situation rather than with the specific figure of £200. We might want to return to that at another date.

Chris Bryant: Would that a Rhondda Labour party coffee morning raised more than £1,000. I am simply reading out paragraph 34, which makes it clear that if the amount is more than £1,000, Members have to register it in the Register of Members' Interests.
	I now come to the next steps. First, the Electoral Commission is happy to confirm, as it did to the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, that the requirements that we are placing on hon. Members today meet all the requirements under the 2000 Act, and it will write to the Justice Secretary—the Lord Chancellor—to say so. He then expects to lay a commencement order before Parliament for section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and paragraph 16 of schedule 7A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, so that dual reporting will finish by the end of June.

Chris Bryant: My feeling about the armed forces parliamentary scheme is that it is pretty difficult to evaluate, on a commercial basis, the cost of lying in a tent in Basra being shelled. It is pretty difficult to estimate whether that is worth £1,000 or more. However, when Members are not sure what the value of such a thing is, but guess that it might be more than £1,000, there is provision for them simply to attest to the fact that they have had that benefit. The honest truth is that it does no one a disservice to over-register; for instance, registering the fact that they have had the benefit of being involved in the armed forced parliamentary scheme would redound to their benefit, rather than to their discredit.

Alan Duncan: I had hoped that this was going to be a very straightforward and simple debate and that all I would need to do was stand up, speak for two minutes, thank everybody and hope that everything was lovely and tidy, hunky-dory and tickety-boo, and that there would be no problems. However, although the House will have appreciated the Minister's speech, it appears that he has unintentionally somewhat muddied the waters, and I sense that there is now some concern in the House about the precision with which the new system will work. Although what is proposed is billed as the abolition of dual reporting, a sentence on page 19 of the guide to the rules suggests that it is not entirely that:
	"Registration by the Member is additional to any registration required of the local organisation."
	It is on that sentence and the link between association fundraising and the declarations of Members, whose benefit is the crucial aspect, that the confusion has arisen. If I may, I shall come to that point in a moment.
	First, let us establish what we are trying to do. As we debated as recently as two weeks ago, openness and transparency are very important. Curiously, however, we have discovered over the past few years that that can be overdone, in the sense that duplication is unnecessary and adds nothing to the simple keeping of a central record, which should suffice. What has grown up is a process whereby, in addition to a thorough central record, a parallel institution has demanded that the same matters be recorded with it. That dual reporting has been an unintended consequence of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and it is, to any sensible person, absurd. Once is enough; if it has to be done twice and moreover the requirements are not exactly parallel, there will be a minefield on which people falling foul of the rules can be tripped up and maligned in the press for not complying with those rules.
	Basically, we have had too many rules, and they have become so complicated that being a Member of Parliament is now a bit like running a small business. I would like to thank, properly, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for trying to clarify those rules and presenting this report to the House. However, as he said, the process of making them less complicated has itself proved rather complicated. It is a bit like when Nigel Lawson, now Lord Lawson, said that the process of simplifying taxation inevitably makes taxation more complicated.
	We have hit on a point that seems to be muddy. The underlying principle is that if any of us, as an individual Member of this House, appears to be benefiting from the raising or giving of money, we should declare it openly. However, two issues have given rise to concern in the 45 minutes of debate that we have had: the phrase "linked to" and the operation of our local constituency associations. I do things, as I am sure do the Minister and others in this House, to raise money for the Conservative party—in the Minister's case, of course, it is not for the Conservative party—and I would like to think that if I am speaking at a fundraising dinner I can raise more than a thousand quid for the party. [Hon. Members: "No problem!"] Indeed; we could add a nought—we never know if people are queuing at the door. However, that is not for my benefit. I think that the Minister said, rightly, that I would not receive the benefit, but it is fair to say that in some of his answers he gave he gave a slightly different impression. Likewise, if I attend a meeting of my association—a dinner at which I, as the local Member of Parliament, might be speaking—and it raises more than £1,000, we are in a grey area where it may or may not be declarable. At the moment, in attending such an event, I would be raising money for the European and county council elections. That is of no benefit to me whatsoever, beyond the broader political advance that those elections will lead to. That is, however, in no way a direct contribution to me or my campaign.

David Heath: Like the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), I rather assumed that this would be a brief and uncomplicated debate, but it has proved to be anything but. One difficulty is that whenever anyone refers to the obligations that are placed on political parties or Members in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it comes as a huge revelation to Members that they have been required to act in a particular way. It is hardly surprising, then, that hon. Members occasionally find themselves caught out by inadvertence rather than by anything else.
	We have had a dual reporting system with different categories and criteria and, therefore, somebody who believed that they had done the right thing by registering interests properly with the Registrar of Members' Interests found themselves at fault because they had not done so with the Electoral Commission under the 2000 Act. Many of us have argued for bringing the two systems together and rationalising them for a long time. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee, on which I once served, on their work on putting the two codes together.
	Let me say gently to the Deputy Leader of the House that he did not shed an awful lot of light on the matter that caused all the difficulties this afternoon, not because he was not trying desperately hard to do so, but because, every time he opened his mouth, someone had a new flash of inspiration about an event in their constituencies that perhaps they should have registered, but had not. They therefore reacted with alarm. However, hon. Members should know that the proposals do not change the law or the current position. If they have arranged a dinner, or an event such as the mythical coffee mornings in the Rhondda, which raise more than £1,000—I am impressed by that; perhaps it is the best way in which to raise funds in south Wales, but it does not work so well in Somerset in terms of gross profit—that is designed to raise money for their candidature and it makes more than £1,000 profit, it falls within the terms of the 2000 Act. Such an event will now have to be registered on the Register of Members' Interests here, but the registration no longer needs to be duplicated. Reporting by political parties is different.

Patrick Cormack: The more I listen, the more confused I become. Most fundraising events are not held to further the interests of the sitting Member, but to pay for the rent of the premises that the party occupies, the agent's salary and other matters. When a general election is called, most of us have a fighting fund, which is—then and only then—entirely for the benefit of the prospective Member. There is a genuine difference between the two, but, this afternoon, we find the waters muddied.

David Heath: They are not muddied. The hon. Gentleman has described what the political parties, not the Member, must register. The Member does not have to register anything that is not for his particular benefit. That is the distinction, which is not especially difficult. If in doubt, Members will have to consult the Registrar and ensure that they are doing things correctly. However, the provision should not come as a surprise to hon. Members because it is not new. Whom one tells is new, not the necessity to report. That is crucial.
	I want to deal with the interesting and important point that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made in an intervention on the Deputy Leader of the House about category 3 declaration. It covers
	"any provision to clients of services which depend essentially upon, or arise out of, the Member's position as a Member of Parliament".
	I assume, because of the rules of advocacy, which the report also includes, that that category covers simply providing advice to a company or organisation arising from our knowledge as Members of Parliament of the proceedings and procedures of Parliament, and not advocacy, which is not allowed under the rules. However, we need to consider that carefully at some stage. If we want to avoid the appearance of partiality, it is difficult to be a Member of Parliament, who is employed for the purposes of providing services associated with being a Member of Parliament, without the question of partiality arising.
	I shall take it no further today, but that category is there in black and white as a recognisable category. We shall see who registers and what sort of interests are registered under that category, but we would do well to return to it in future, to see whether it is appropriate.
	Having said that, I think that we have a good and sensible coalition of the two codes under which we are allowed to register, although I agree that there is still some nonsense in the arrangement. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) mentioned one example, which is the registration of visits under the armed forces parliamentary scheme. When I went to the Arctic with the Royal Marines, I did not feel that I got an enormous financial benefit from sitting in a tent in the Arctic circle, but I benefited enormously in terms of my personal development and my knowledge of the privations that the armed forces face. I was pleased to have that opportunity. I am not convinced that it ought to be a registrable interest, but on the other hand, what harm does it do me to say that that is what I have done? I do not see that anyone would suggest that such a declaration would be a pejorative declaration.

Bob Spink: The Minister has done a good job this afternoon in trying to push the House in the right direction, but I am deeply saddened that this House is yet again sending out a negative message to the public, which is that we do not want to be transparent. The suggestion is that we want somehow to hide what we are doing and to hide the money coming into our associations which will, one way or another, eventually benefit us. That is a negative message. It reinforces what the press and the public think about this House, and it is a downright shame. The clear message going out to the public is that we do not want to register benefits and interests.
	Constituency associations and political parties have one key objective—it is the No. 1 objective in their constitutions; indeed, they say it on the front page—and that is to win elections. The key election that political parties want to win is the election to get their members back into this House. Members will return to this House if their constituency associations are doing well, by winning local government elections, for instance, because that can be helpful to those Members.
	I disagree entirely with the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on this point. We should be totally transparent about this, because we have nothing to hide. The whole organisation of a political party—its constituency organisations, its associations—exists to return candidates; there are no grey areas, so I wonder why we feel that we have something to hide. We should be declaring the £1,000 that is raised for our constituency association, and we should be happy to do so, so that the public can benefit from that transparency and we can be held to account.
	I welcome this paper, as far as it goes, but we should go much further. We really should look at how our staff are employed and at the conditions and selection processes involved. Of course, Members should have control over which staff are selected, but our staff should be employed formally and professionally by the Department of Resources, not by 646 separate small businesses in the House. That is not what we come to Parliament to do. We are legislators; we are here to fight for our constituents, our associations and our country. We are not here to act as small businesses employing people. We should get away from that practice, which would save us a lot of problems and give the public more confidence about what we do here and how we are doing it. God knows, the public need to get some confidence in us; at the moment, they certainly do not have any.
	Finally, I should like to mention the outside earnings syndrome. In this day and age, it is nonsense for Members to be moonlighting and doing other jobs that earn them more money than their main job here pays them. I spend between 60 and 80 hours a week doing my job. I could do more, and I could do a better job, if I had more time to do it. There is no way that I have time to go out and earn money on the side by being a barrister, writing articles for newspapers or going on the circuit giving after-dinner speeches. Those practices are a total nonsense in this day and age in a modern Parliament, and we should stop that abuse. Those Members are out there earning a good living doing something else while drawing their full salary here but failing to do the full job.

David Howarth: I rather think that that was a churlish speech from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), so I will start with the part of the programme motion with which I agree and appreciate—that which states that the second day will start with a debate on amending provisions connected with restricting the donations that can be made to political parties. That is welcome and necessary because it goes back to something entirely reprehensible that happened in Committee—the fact that the Committee never reached the new clauses and amendments that the Liberal Democrats tabled on the important matter of capping donations to political parties— [Interruption.] I hear some tutting on the Conservative Benches, but it was Conservative Members who were largely responsible for the fact that the Committee did not reach those provisions.
	I am, however, disappointed in one aspect of the second day allotted under the programme motion. We have always said that our proposals on capping donations to parties at the £50,000 level are part of a package deal that was negotiated between the parties by Sir Hayden Phillips. What has happened in the programming is that that aspect of the package deal—the donation cap—has been separated from the other aspects of the deal, namely the global or all-parliament limit on spending. As a result, the debate has become slightly fragmented, yet Sir Hayden was clear that the proposals were combined, both on the spending side and the donation side, and that all the parties should unite around them.
	It is also disappointing and unwelcome that, as a result of the structuring of the second day, the new clauses to cap spending are liable to fall to the knife. That is particularly the case because politically, if not technically within the Bill, our proposals for capping expenditure, particularly local expenditure of all types, are an alternative to what the Government's have tabled as their new and innovative suggestion for replacing what has become known as the trigger. Our criticisms of the trigger and of what the Government are proposing today have to be seen in the light of what we are proposing as an alternative in terms of local spending caps. It is disappointing that the discussion on the Bill will not be structured in a way that makes those alternatives clear.

Michael Wills: I hope that we can move rapidly to agreeing the programme motion so that we can get on to the substance of the Bill, but I want, I if I may, to pick up a couple of points. What the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) called a poorly structured approach to the Bill has actually been a painstaking search for consensus. Over and over again—on Second Reading and throughout consideration in Committee—we have made it clear that we think that when we are dealing with matters such as this, which are of such constitutional importance, it is crucial that we should do so on the basis of consensus.
	I hope that the Opposition parties will agree that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor have both gone to great trouble to try to consult them. We have not always been able to agree, but we have listened and, wherever possible, responded. That is exactly why we have tabled so many amendments. We have genuinely approached this with an open mind, and where we have been persuaded by the arguments made by the Opposition parties we have changed our proposals. That is why we have made them in the way that we have.
	I do not think that that is poorly structured; it is a proper search for consensus on an important bit of political structuring and constitutional proposals that should be approached in exactly that way. I utterly reject what the hon. Gentleman has said about that.
	On tabling the amendments late, most were tabled two weeks ago and the rest a week ago. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that that is not typical of how Governments always do business. We have done our best to give hon. Members, as we always said we would, time to engage with those new amendments. As he well knows, we briefed Opposition Members in advance as well.
	Hon. Members requested two days for consideration on Report. They have got two days. There is a delay between those two days because, as Opposition Members are well aware, the House is going into recess. That is why. I do not see anything wrong with that. It seems to me to be a proper way to behave.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made some important points about donation caps. I absolutely understand his concerns, but his remarks missed out something very important, if I may say so. Sir Hayden Phillips made it clear that it is not possible to consider the question of donation caps without enhanced public funding. That is the nub of his proposals. I notice that all the discussions initiated by the Liberal Democrats on that particular point somehow slide over the fact of that crucial link with state funding.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are open to having that discussion. We agree that it is important and that, for the long term, Sir Hayden Phillips's proposals represent fundamental constitutional change, but I return to the fundamental point: we cannot proceed unless there is a reasonable degree of cross-party support. As the hon. Gentleman himself said, that is simply not possible at the moment.

Political Parties and Elections Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allotted day]

Jonathan Djanogly: All the amendments in the first group except the first two new clauses address clause 3 and schedule 2, which introduce a range of civil sanctions for the Electoral Commission. The sanctions relate to the commission of offences and the contravention of restrictions or requirements under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, or PPERA. Together, clause 3 and schedule 2 empower the commission to impose these civil sanctions on a "person", "registered party", "recognised third party" or "permitted participant", as defined in the 2000 Act.
	The Conservatives agree that the making available of enhanced civil powers and sanctions will, in certain situations, be more appropriate than the sledgehammer of criminal sanctions under the 2000 Act. The commission will have a wider range of sanctions to enable it to be a more effective and robust regulator, and that was identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life report in January 2007, which picked up on the problems facing the commission. However, we are keen to ensure that any use of sanctions is valid—the use of powers must be proportionate, risk based and fair, and a number of aspects require further review by us today.
	New clause 3 would replace a number of criminal offences in the 2000 Act with a fixed penalty of £1,000. The suggestion is interesting, but we are concerned that it could reduce the effectiveness of the Electoral Commission and weaken the strength of sanctions—there could be a lack of a proper deterrent in many cases if the commission is limited to the use of a fixed monetary penalty for the offences implicated by the new clause. We are prepared to review this conceptually in later stages, and the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton), particularly on the lack of guidance, were well put.
	New clause 4 would create an independent panel responsible for producing a code of practice relating to the Electoral Commission's use of civil sanctions. The panel would also offer guidance to it. Although the new clause offers an interesting protection against the abuse by the commission of its powers, the 2000 Act contains an equivalent measure. Under that Act, the Parliamentary Parties Panel can make submissions to the commission on the use of sanctions, so this extra provision should be unnecessary. Again, I take the hon. Gentleman's well made point about careful monitoring, and I hope that the panel is put to its full use in that regard.
	Our amendments 59 to 62 relate, respectively, to paragraphs 1(b), 2(b), 3(b) and 4(b) to schedule 2. They would remove the commission's ability to impose a fixed monetary penalty on a person, registered party, recognised third party or permitted participant for a non-offence contravention of the Act. It is important to note that the commission would still have the power to issue a fixed penalty for the commission of a prescribed offence.
	The power to issue fines is one of the key new flexible powers that the commission is given by the Bill. We hope that they will enable it to deal with enforcement more flexibly and proportionately than it has been able to do in the past. Fixed penalty notices require the person, registered party, recognised third party or permitted participant to pay an amount specified in the notice to the commission. We tabled the amendments because we feel the need to err on the side of caution when dealing with non-offence infringements of the Act. Will the Minister explain the scope of what we could be dealing with here? Our concern is that, depending on the operation of future electoral commissions, things may be interpreted oppressively, resulting in large fines for relatively minor infringements. We must be sure that we clearly set out the parameters of these powers and the circumstances in which they may be used—not necessarily for the current commission, which has been privy to much of this debate, but for the commissions of the future, which may not be so rational in the use of these powers.
	At the grass-roots level of political engagement in particular, this is an extremely complex and difficult area of law, and the possibility for wide interpretation and the potential for abuse are correspondingly high. This lack of clarity has potential to have a negative impact at the implementation level. We do not want individuals and smaller groups and associations to live in fear of reprisal for minor infringements. When a potentially hefty penalty is the punishment, the criteria of contravention of the prescribed restriction or requirement could be too opaque and broad.
	Amendments 74 and 82 would, respectively, amend paragraphs 2(6) and 9(3) to schedule 2. The paragraphs state which court is to be used for the appeal process in relation to a fixed monetary penalty and a non-compliance penalty for failure to satisfy discretionary requirements under part 2. The amendments would change the relevant court from a county court to the High Court. We remain concerned that the expertise of the county court could be insufficient to deal with a potentially complex case under the legislation.
	The length of discussion on these technical points in Committee, and the debate so far today, show how complicated the various relevant provisions can be. For that reason, we suggest that the high level of judicial scrutiny that the High Court offers is to be favoured. Furthermore, the reputation of the High Court and the scrutiny it applies will serve as a useful check on the commission. Any case that reaches the High Court would become a useful precedent, and any guidance that the High Court gives would be useful in helping to avoid future court appearances. Furthermore, the need to satisfy the demands of the High Court would also encourage the commission to be thorough, if a case were to proceed to judicial scrutiny.
	I remind hon. Members that the use of such powers would be very limited. As such, relatively few cases would be expected to reach this stage and it is unlikely that this requirement would place too great a burden on the High Court. What is important is that cases are considered properly and the relevant level of scrutiny is applied. We consider amendment 74 an important enough issue to press to a Division at the appropriate moment.
	Amendment 78 looks to remove the early payment discount provisions in schedule 2.3(3)(d). As the Bill stands, that and other similar sections provide that notice of a possible penalty must include information about any early payment discounts. That implies that the commission may provide discounts for the early payment of a proposed penalty, imposed under the 2000 Act. Our amendments delete reference to early payment and thereby prevent discounts from being issued.
	While we understand that the intention behind the provisions is to encourage swift settlement of penalty liabilities, we disagree that the discount mechanism currently in place is the best means of achieving the goal. A penalty is an important indication of wrongdoing. Allowing a discount for early payment could suggest that the seriousness of the offence had in some way been mitigated. That could send out the wrong message, and could trivialise the penalty regime.
	Amendments 63 to 67 would serve to remove monetary penalties from the discretionary requirement regime. Amendment 63 would specifically remove subsection (a), relating to monetary penalties, from sub-paragraph 8, which defines what may constitute a "discretionary requirement". It would leave two remaining powers with the commission, which would be extremely flexible and could require a subject to take such steps as the commission sees fit to remedy an offence or contravention. Amendments 64 to 67 are consequential.
	The power to issue fines is one of the key new powers that the Commission will be granted by the Bill. Fines can act as a crude penalty and disincentive when the 2000 Act has been breached. Conceptually, we support the penalty regime in certain circumstances, but we remain concerned at the potential for the Bill to encourage the over-zealous use of penalties when other avenues should be explored first. That is particularly so in the case of minor infringements of the legislation. The discretionary requirement regime, minus the penalty provision, is capable of remedying minor breaches, and we should not encourage a simple fine system that could fail to address the root of the problem. By removing the penalty, the commission would need to focus on imposing a discretionary requirement to take steps to stop or remedy a breach, under paragraph 5(b) and 5(c) respectively. We believe that that is a positive step, and would encourage understanding rather than retribution.
	I expect that there may be concern that the commission will be seen as a light touch without the penalty regime. However, the amendments would leave in place the power to fine when an offence had been committed under the 2000 Act. Thus, in serious cases there would be no need to use the part 2 "discretionary requirements" provision unless it would be useful to do so. Furthermore—and this is a point that I would like to emphasise—if a non-penalty "discretionary requirement" is not satisfied, paragraph 9 would allows the commission to then impose a monetary penalty as a final resort. By leaving it as a final resort in non-offence and less serious cases, it would encourage the commission to help remedy the breach rather than issue a draconian penalty.
	The purpose of amendment 77 is the introduction of a time limit into the Bill. It relates to the period in which an individual can respond to the relevant civil sanction imposed on them by the commission. We contend that the provisions in place could be too vague. Clarity is preferred, especially when potentially innocent subjects are seeking to respond to the commission. The simple addition of specific predefined time limits into the schedule could tackle that problem. Amendment 77 would apply a 28-day limit to the making of representations and objections against a discretionary requirement to the commission. I would point out that part 2 of the schedule provides that in relation to a discretionary requirement the period for representations or objections
	"may not be less than 28 days".
	Does the Minister not agree that that inconsistency is revealing? Surely that shows that 28 days, as a minimum, should be a fair amount of time.
	Amendment 75 would insert the word "promptly" into paragraph 6(5) in part 2 of schedule 2, which relates to the notice of a discretionary requirement. The Minister dismissed the use of the word "immediately" in Committee, which is why we are now back with a slightly less prescriptive term. The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to notify the subject of its final decision to impose a discretionary requirement or fixed monetary penalty promptly because, as things stand, there is no time limit for serving the notice.
	Discretionary requirements, of course, are intended to provide the commission with a flexible means of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the 2000 Act. That flexibility is reflected in paragraph 5 in part 2, which states that a discretionary requirement can be
	"a requirement to take such steps as the Commission may specify".
	That flexibility is welcome, but there should be a compensating certainty, particularly in the delivery of the notice informing the subject of the requirement.
	If prompt compliance is expected of the person, the commission should be an example of good practice in terms of its own expediency. There is no time limit in the Bill for the service of either notice. As such, it is possible that the commission might delay in delivering the notice and delay on the part of the commission is also likely to be reciprocated by the person. Good practice should be a statutory requirement and we believe that the simple insertion of the word "promptly" will help achieve that goal.
	Government amendment 23 follows up on a number of amendments tabled in Committee by me and the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger) and relates to the requirement for the commission to publish guidance. In Committee on 13 November, concern was expressed about the frequency and timing of guidance published by the commission on the use of its powers. Questions were also posed regarding the content of any guidance. Our Committee amendments 61 and 62 and the Liberal Democrats' Committee amendment 136 sought to address deficiencies in that respect.
	The consensus stemming from the debate was that annual guidance should be published and that it should be required to contain certain prescribed information, particularly on the use of investigatory powers. I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken those suggestions on board and we welcome Government amendment 23. It obliges the commission to publish annual information on the use of commission powers. It achieves that by attaching that requirement to the pre-existing annual financial reporting requirement contained in paragraph 20 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. The annual financial report will now include information in line with the newly introduced schedule 2 requirements. That seems to us a suitable way of going about that. We are pleased that the Government have included that positive amendment and we hope that the annual reporting requirement will reassure people that the commission is using its powers reasonably.
	Government amendment 28 relates to a report published by the commission in accordance with paragraph 27 of the schedule. It stipulates that any report may, pursuant to the paragraph, omit certain information if, in the opinion of the commission, the publication of the information would or might be unlawful or if it might adversely affect any proceedings or investigation. In essence, it qualifies the obligation introduced by the welcome Government amendment 23.
	Although we agree that some flexibility is acceptable in terms of reporting requirements, the measure could go slightly too far, we believe. There is no requirement that the commission's opinion of the lawfulness or any adverse affects of publishing certain information should be reasonable. We feel that an opinion to that end should be reasonable, and our amendment (a) to Government amendment 28 addresses the deficiency. It would ensure that the commission does not become overly defensive with regard to the information that it holds. As things stand, the commission could have a very subjective and defensive set of opinions, which could prevent full and frank disclosure in its report. That would dampen considerably the positive potential of the reporting requirement.
	We also have a slight reservation about the wording of sub-paragraph (b) in Government amendment 28. The effect of sub-paragraph (b) would be that information could validly be omitted from a report if its publication
	"might adversely affect any current investigation or proceedings."
	That goes further than the current wording of the Bill and, again, it could lead to over-cautiousness on the part of the commission. Our second amendment to Government amendment 28—amendment (b)—changes the wording from "might" to "would". That would refocus the commission when it decided on whether the publication of information really would damage its investigation. In combination with the mere subjective opinion requirement that I have identified, schedule 2 would, if not amended, allow for a very cautious report that might not be fully informative, and that would not fully reflect the reality of the commission's work. I would appreciate the Minister's further thoughts on those points.
	Finally, amendment 83 inserts a threshold test after paragraph 27(2) of schedule 2. The amendment aims to ensure that the commission excludes details of less serious offences in the reports that it is obliged to publish under paragraph 27(1). The measure would serve three purposes. First, it would excuse from further censure those who have fallen foul of the legislation to a minor extent. The threshold ensures that only the more serious offenders are named and shamed. Secondly, the removal of minor offences from the reports would mean a more intense focus on the major offenders. The threshold of £5,000—the amount is negotiable, as far as we are concerned—catches the most serious cases and ensures that they are rightly named and shamed. Thirdly, the measure would act as an additional deterrent to the commission of offences and infringements. Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on those proposals.

David Howarth: Precisely right. But I want the hon. Gentleman to demonstrate that the provisions that he puts forward—in amendment 74, for example—specifically help to guard the democratic process. My central worry is that this is not do with thinking about the function and the importance of politics but has more to do with our self-regard and our specific knowledge. That is insufficient reason to treat better an activity that we know more about than other sorts of activity that we regulate every day.

Fabian Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend not accept that the motivation behind new clause 4 was to ensure that the commission, which up to now has not been consistent in investigating various infringements, should now be consistent and be monitored in respect of such consistency? Can he assure me and the House that what is proposed will ensure such consistency, which has been so sadly lacking?

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister said that we were talking about distinguishing the commission's activities from other aspects of public life, but the legislation to which the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) referred probably deals mainly with commercial life.

Michael Wills: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman again to what the Electoral Commission has said. It has made it absolutely clear that it will approach each case on its merits and proportionately. The dictionary definitions in respect of what he has just described are that it is not proportionate. We have to accept what the Electoral Commission says and be extremely careful about binding its hands. I refer him back to what I have just said: what he is suggesting in amendments 59 to 62 may have the perverse consequence of producing the opposite result to that which he is seeking.
	Amendment 78 deals with early payment discounts and late payment penalties. It is similar to amendments tabled by the Opposition in the Public Bill Committee, and I am delighted to discuss these matters again, and to set out our thinking on them and explain why we must again resist the proposals. As the hon. Member for Cambridge has pointed out, the provisions for early payment discounts and late payment penalties replicate the equivalent provisions in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, on which the civil sanctions regime is based.
	I believe it is right to encourage prompt payment of sanctions, and to reflect the procedural savings to the regulator—in this case, the Electoral Commission. Of course, the commission's role is not purely administrative, but there are those, including the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who have argued that the measures will turn the commission's role into a that of a traffic warden issuing fixed penalty notices. With respect to him, however, that is not the point. These sanctions provisions are only part of a range of potential sanctions, and the whole point is that there should be flexibility in how they are applied. We are seeking to provide such a flexible approach to sanctions in line with other regulators who have benefited from the provisions in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, on which these provisions are modelled.
	In providing for the possibility of early payment discounts and late payment penalties, the commission will have the option to offer the provisions if it deems that appropriate. I shall set that out in the final version of its guidance on enforcement. However, it may decide to offer the options in some instances and not in others. For example, it may decide that providing for an early payment discount is appropriate in some instances, and that a fixed monetary penalty might be appropriate for a relatively small breach and when speeding up the regulatory process is in the interests of the regulator and of the individual concerned. The commission may also decide that it is not appropriate to provide these discounts or penalties in some cases—for example, when the individual is a serial offender or when the offence is of a more serious nature. I hope that that addresses the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Cambridge.

Michael Wills: As always, I am happy to consider the argument; we can return to it at some future point. As I have said, I understand the instincts behind amendment 74 and I understand the importance that the hon. Member for Huntingdon attaches to it. I am sympathetic to the argument, but I just think that in this particular case, it would not be effective: it would be a break with precedents and it would not necessarily help in the way the hon. Gentleman imagines—possibly because of the delays and the attendant impact on those subject to appeals.

Michael Wills: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, there is a precedent in respect of electoral law and there is certainly a break with the precedent established by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. Of course what is proposed is not identical, because as the hon. Gentleman says, we are dealing with new law, but in so far as there are precedents, the amendment would constitute a break with them. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 74 to the vote and to withdraw it.
	I am afraid that I am also going to have to resist amendment 77, which introduces a time period for appeals against discretionary requirements. As I said when we debated similar amendments in Committee, such a provision would reduce the clarity of the Bill for those regulated by the commission. The amendment would introduce a time period for appeals, but it is already contained in provisions devoted to appeals and representations procedures; that is the proper place for such a time period, where it sits most obviously with other provisions relating to appeals. I think that the amendment is an unhelpful step, which would not aid comprehension of the provisions, so I oppose it on that ground alone.
	In the course of his remarks, the hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether there was an inconsistency between references to 28 days for appealing against fixed monetary penalties and those for variable monetary penalties. The precise point is that the maximum period for making representations for fixed monetary penalties is 28 days, which reflects the fact that the breach being punished is less likely to be serious. Representations against the decision to impose such a penalty will need less time. Variable monetary penalties are, as I have already said, likely to be higher and will be imposed in more complex cases, so it is right that longer time be given to object. That is why there is a minimum period of 28 days in that case. Both the time scales are based on the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, from which we should depart only if there is a compelling reason to do so. In this case, we do not think that there is.
	The aim of amendment 75 is, I understand, to encourage the commission to demonstrate good practice to those it regulates by acting quickly. We do not believe that the amendment, particularly in the way it is structured, is desirable. As I explained to the hon. Member for Huntingdon when a very similar amendment was tabled in Committee, we do not want unnecessarily to limit the commission in its application of the new civil sanctions regime. We do not want to depart from the framework set up by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. I have already said that many times already this afternoon and I suspect that I will need to say it many times again before we are through today.
	Whatever the circumstances of the case, we expect the commission to act as promptly as it is able to do—a point that will be covered in the final guidance on enforcement. We believe that the commission is well aware of the need for working in a timely fashion. Indeed, in its draft guidance, the commission notes in words that I hope will reassure the hon. Member for Huntingdon:
	"We recognise that it is important to conclude investigations as quickly as possible, in the public interest and in the interests of natural justice for those involved",
	which balances with
	"our first priority... to conduct a fair and thorough investigation".
	If I may paraphrase, it is precisely those concerns with natural justice and the public interest that lie behind the amendment, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured. This is an important point. I understand that the amendment seeks to protect those subject to investigations, but it is precisely the references to natural justice and the public interest that should reassure the hon. Gentleman. In those circumstances, it is best not to put the commission under a legal obligation to act promptly; instead, of course, performance should be monitored and recorded in the annual report to ensure that decisions are taken expeditiously and on all the right evidence. I thus hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 83 would provide that the Electoral Commission, in its reports on sanctions, is able to publish the names only of those on whom it has imposed a monetary penalty in excess of £5,000. Following the Government amendment on annual reporting of sanctions, the reports referred to will be included in the commission's annual report.
	Amendment 83 goes against the core principle of transparency. I believe that it is right for the receipt of a civil penalty to be public, which is an important part of the deterrent effect of the civil sanctions regime. The amendment would exclude a significant range of the potential sanctions available—and most likely the majority—from being reported publicly. For instance, for offences that are triable only in a magistrates court, fines are capped at £5,000, so should this amendment be agreed, the commission's civil sanctions would not be reported.
	Failing to report the imposition of such sanctions is also inconsistent with the requirements of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, by which the commission, as a public authority, will be bound. Article 6, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon will know, requires decisions to impose civil or criminal penalties to be made public. I should also say that the commission will be bound by data protection legislation in all circumstances.

Michael Wills: As I have already said, transparency is absolutely crucial and our approach mirrors the position with criminal prosecutions where a person has been convicted of an offence. That fact is normally known. I remind the hon. Gentleman that an imposition of a civil penalty in this case might, after all, be an alternative to criminal prosecution.
	In all circumstances, the commission is being required to be satisfied that the criminal standard of proof has been met before it can impose most of its new civil penalties. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but it is also worth saying that the commission will not report on investigations that have not resulted in an imposition of a penalty or that are still continuing, although it has said that it will provide information in response to specific requests.
	It is a fundamental common law principle, underpinning our legal system, that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I do not think that anyone, including the commission, would want the publication of such a formal report to risk intruding upon that. Nothing in this proposal would require the commission to include such detail. I have no reason to think that it would be necessary to do so, although I should say that what the commission ultimately decides to include is a matter for the commission.

Jonathan Djanogly: The amendments deal with the investigatory powers of the Electoral Commission. Let me provide some of the background. The commission was created by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which gave it supervisory powers. Its functions are set out in section 145, which stipulates that its role is as a regulator, with attendant responsibility to monitor parts 3 and 4 of the Act. Those parts relate to
	"accounting requirements for registered parties and their members"
	and the
	"control of donations to registered parties and their members"
	respectively.
	In carrying out its role, the commission is empowered by section l46 of the Act to request information from any of a group of subjects, including political parties and candidates at an election. Additionally, a person authorised by the commission may enter the premises of a registered party, a recognised third party or a permitted participant to inspect financial records. We should therefore appreciate that potent powers are already available to the Commission, as the Minister confirmed in Committee.
	We support the existence of effective powers and will not revisit the PPERA powers here, but it is important for political activity not to be discouraged for fear of a heavy-handed, over-zealous and excessively empowered Electoral Commission. Furthermore, as the Minister acknowledged in Committee, the extensive powers that already exist have been used very rarely. Indeed, on Second Reading the Secretary of State for Justice confirmed that
	"the existing powers have been used only once since the Electoral Commission was established nearly eight years ago."—[ Official Report, 20 October 2008; Vol. 481, c.50.]
	Above all, let us not forget that the Bill and the Electoral Commission's powers have a common aim: restoration of confidence in the political system through the eradication of unfair and underhand practices. It is against that backdrop that we cautiously welcome the Government amendments, which, in our view, represent a significant improvement on the Bill presented in Committee. In particular, the provisions that empowered the Commission to enter the premises of donees—including MPs—for the purpose of monitoring has been withdrawn, while the ability to apply for a search warrant for the purpose of investigating a suspected offence or legislative breach has been entirely removed. Nevertheless, a number of reservations remain, and there is more work to be done before we can be fully satisfied.
	Schedule 1 contains the provisions of a new schedule 19A to the 2000 Act, which is inserted in the Act by clause 2(2). In respect of schedule 1, I reiterate our conceptual support for an enhanced role for the commission as a regulator, but that support is not unqualified, and attention is now required as we address the detail.
	Amendments 46 and 47 are intended to inject clarity. In the light of the commission's wide-ranging powers, it is sensible to define the limits of the relevant provisions carefully. The amendments are linked, and introduce a specified time limit for the period in which a retired officer is subject to the disclosure notice provisions. We are keen to avoid a scenario in which long-retired ex-officers of political associations are subject to disclosure notices in relation to some long-forgotten donation or action: it is both unreasonable and impractical to extend this power to very historical actions.
	From a more practical perspective, the likelihood of comprehensive records or documents being kept by an officer for more than five years after his tenure is small and the power would be difficult to enforce, especially in view of the limited physical space in which party officials often find themselves working. We must also be aware of the financial and administrative burdens that we place on such individuals and organisations, as well as the fact that many of the individuals concerned will have left such offices altogether and may even have left the country.
	What concerned the Minister in Committee was that, given the wording of the amendment that we proposed then, long-standing officers of more than five years' standing could be excluded even if they were still serving. That was clearly not our intention. We have taken this opportunity to hone the earlier amendment, proposing amendments 46 and 47 to address its deficiencies. They address the point made by the Minister by removing the ability to serve a notice on an ex-officer who has been retired from the post for five years or more, while not limiting the ability to serve a notice on any current officer. An additional benefit would be the encouragement of expedient and efficient issuing of notices by the Electoral Commission. If the commission does not find grounds for investigation within five years of an officer's retiring from a post, it is normally the fault of the commission rather than the individual or group.
	Let me repeat that we are dealing with unpaid volunteers in our associations who involve themselves in politics because they want to give their time freely for what they hope will be the better of our society. We must, as far as possible, encourage them in that, and not put them off by unnecessary and burdensome liabilities. To that end, I intend to press amendment 47 to a Division.
	The background to Government amendments 11 to 22 is contentious. Great concern has been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill about the excessiveness of the new "powers of entry" regime. Prior to the amendments, the Bill would have extended the Electoral Commission's existing powers of entry under section 146 of the Political Parties and Electoral Reform Act to include other bodies and individuals such as donors and MPs. Quite simply, hard-fought personal liberties—specifically privacy—were at stake. Moreover, we were greatly concerned about potential erosion of the willingness of law-abiding citizens to donate to political parties and engage with the political system. A single abuse of the entry powers—perhaps the entering of a suspected but innocent person's home—could have had grave consequences for donations generally, thus damaging the general aims of the Bill.
	The Government amendments remove from the Bill the commission's excessive power to enter the premises of regulated donees, regulated participants, candidates at an election and election agents. However, they replace the removed passage with a new paragraph 1A which retains the commission's ability to enter the premises of a registered party, a recognised third party, a permitted participant, a members' association, or an organisation or individual formerly falling within any of those groups. The Bill will still permit the commission to enter premises other than those excluded by Government amendment 11 for the purpose of carrying out its functions, and it may then inspect documents relating to income and expenditure. Government amendments 12, 18 and 21 are consequential, and ensure that the remaining provisions of the schedule are consistent with the change.
	On 11 November last year, in Committee, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) expressed concern lest the wholesale removal of entry powers in relation to all donees, as proposed by what was then our amendment 102, would go too far and actually reduce the existing powers of the commission. In particular, the removal of "donees" from the paragraph would remove members' associations—along with MPs—from the ambit of the provision. Government amendment 11 addresses that concern by including members' associations in new paragraph 1A(l)(d). The commission itself has also confirmed that the power conferred in Committee was not essential for its purposes.
	We are now close to a position that is acceptable to all in terms of entry powers. Accordingly, we welcome this significant Government climbdown and the reduction in the commission's power, and we are pleased that the ability to invade the privacy of MPs and other individuals will be removed. Even with these amendments, the commission will still possess significant powers to ensure it is equipped to tackle offences and infringements of the 2000 Act. Indeed, the drafting essentially preserves the status quo under the Act while removing the contentious provisions. To that extent, these amendments represent a significant retreat from the menacing position proposed in the Bill presented in Committee and return a much-needed balance to the schedule.
	As amended by Government amendment 11, schedule 1 would make reference to those people "authorised by the Commission". Such people are very important, and almost all the powers granted to the commission are available to these individuals. Unfortunately, there is no reference in the Bill to what constitutes a person "authorised by the Commission". Considering the great powers placed in their hands, we consider that it would be better if they were a defined group of persons.
	Amendment 52 proposes a solution, and defines
	"a person authorised by the Commission",
	and who may be authorised by the commission to exercise its powers under the schedule. Who such a person can be has been intentionally restricted to high-level employees of the commission. In Committee on 11 November, the Minister expressed concern that this would be too "restrictive and inflexible". However, the Minister went on to address this concern by confirming:
	"The commission has no intention of using this power lightly". ——[ Official Report, Political Parties and Elections Public Bill Committee, 11 November 2008; c. 175.]
	Reconciling these two statements, I ask this question: is it not sensible that a power that will be rarely used, and employed only to tackle serious cases, is exercised only by the more senior members of the commission? It seems entirely reasonable to expect the commission to send a senior individual, ensuring that both the commission and the subject of the search take the process seriously. As things stand, the commission could theoretically send the cleaner along. Any lack of flexibility caused by this amendment reflects the need to exercise caution when exercising commission powers.
	Government amendment 13 represents another progressive development in an area that was hotly disputed in Committee. First and foremost, it removes the power of entry by warrant introduced by paragraph 3 of schedule 1. This is significant, and shows the progress we have made in departing from the draconian provisions of the original Bill. Without this amendment, the Bill would permit entry, by force, on to the premises of MPs and other individuals. Given recent events, I hardly need to remind hon. Members how contentious that power was; it was excessive and had the potential to be used disproportionately. In addition, the amendment replaces the entry by warrant provision with a more acceptable measure: the ability for the commission to apply for a court order that documents be released. The commission may apply for a court order when it has exhausted the request by notice procedure in paragraph 2(2). We support this measure, and believe that it is a helpful last resort when the commission is confronted with a reluctant subject of a proper investigation. The hurdles in place before an order can be made also seem adequate, and the commission must show that there are "reasonable grounds" to suspect that a person has committed an offence under the 2000 Act.
	Government amendments 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 22 are consequential amendments ensuring that the Bill is internally consistent in the wake of the changes. Despite our general support for the removal of the warrant system and the introduction of court orders, we have two concerns and have tabled amendments to Government amendment 13 accordingly.
	The first of our amendments has been introduced because we believe that the High Court is a more suitable venue for hearing an application than the county court. A higher judicial threshold places a greater obligation on the commission to ensure that the reasoning behind its application is legally sound. A judge in the High Court would subject any arguments to more thorough scrutiny than could be expected from the county court. It is important that a strong check is placed on the issuing of disclosure orders, ensuring that any such order is proportionate and justified. We remain hopeful that the use of orders will be infrequent, and that this higher threshold will therefore not place any excessive burden on the commission or the High Court. Nevertheless, when such an order is required, the superior scrutiny of the High Court will be beneficial.
	Our second amendment to Government amendment 13 addresses our concern that no specific time limit is given for compliance with an order once it is served. The Government amendment simply states that an order will require delivery of the documents
	"within such time as is specified in the order".
	As we have argued in relation to other provisions in the Bill, we recommend that a minimum 28-day limit should be placed on all compliance requirements in schedule 1. There should be a sufficient and clear period during which those served with a disclosure notice can locate the documents and information specified under the notice, and provide it to the commission. Effort should be made to ensure that individuals do not fall victim to the Bill's penalty regime because of unforeseen delays and an uncertain deadline. With a 28-day limit in place, subjects will know how long they have to comply, and can work to the deadline without fearing that the commission might place them under an unrealistic deadline.
	Amendments 2, 3 and 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton), deal with the commission's power under the Bill to enter and search premises by warrant. The amendments are an alternative to amendments tabled by the Government, which remove the powers of entry and search by warrant, and I believe they have effectively been superseded.
	Amendment 57 would provide that subjects for search are provided with a copy of the authorisation for the search. It is important that individuals or groups who are subject to this power of the commission have the full details of the search. A copy of the authorisation is important for them to decide whether they wish to access avenues of appeal and redress. The amendment fortifies vital safeguards, and helps to prevent the abuse of powers by the commission. Providing copies of the authorisation documentation ensures that the propriety of the search is asserted, and that the subject can confirm the details of the search. Further, leaving a copy allows for cool and considered review of the warrant away from the heat of the moment, and it prevents a simple flash of paper when the recipient is in shock from the entry process. In the heat of the moment, it is possible that the shock of the entrance could counteract any explanation of the search, however thorough and clear the commission believes it to be. Further still, there is no guarantee that a relevant person will be at the premises when it is searched. For example, the cleaner or an office junior might be the only person present, and as such not be qualified to fully comprehend the explanation, let alone communicate it to someone more senior. In Committee on 13 November, the Minister considered this issue and promised to return to it on Report if necessary, so I would be pleased if he were now to give us his views on it.

David Howarth: I, too, welcome the Government amendments in this group. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, there was widespread concern in the House not only about the extent of the powers being granted to the commission, but about the way in which those powers were to be exercised by a warrant process that did not contain much accountability. From the start of the debate on this matter, the commission has conceded the point; in evidence to us, it said that it would prefer a different sort of procedure. The way in which the Government have introduced the procedure in the amendments reflects well on what the commission asked them to do: to move to a different process whereby an application is made to a court for an order, the court checks that the order has been properly applied for and the circumstances are such that an order should be made, and the sanction is basically the one for contempt of court—rightly, anyone who defies a court order to act in the way that the commission wants is asking for trouble. That is a far more proportionate, accountable and open way of proceeding.
	On Government amendment 11, the hon. Gentleman mentioned my concern in Committee that proposals to exclude vast swathes of the people who were affected by the commission's powers would go too far and we would end up with less regulatory coverage than there is now. I am entirely satisfied with the Government's response on that matter, for precisely the reason that he mentioned—the new drafting covers the cases I had in mind.
	I can offer the hon. Gentleman some comfort in that, compared with the previous debate, I agree with the Conservatives' amendments 46 and 47. He rightly says that there is a need for some sort of statutory limitations on this sort of regulation; we cannot have people who are long retired still facing the prospect of having action taken against them under these powers. For the sake of certainty and clarity, it is right to have a cut-off point, so I am with him in his principle, which is right, and I will support him in the Lobby if he manages to secure a vote on this particular point. However, I would prefer a time limit of six years, rather than five, simply because—this goes back to the previous debate—that would be more in line with the normal limitation times used in law.
	On amendment 52, the hon. Gentleman is also right to say that there ought to be a specific list of people of a specific degree of seniority who can act on the behalf of the commission. Simply making provision in respect of anyone to whom the commission might delegate gives too broad a discretion. This ought to be controlled by not only the commission's views as to what is right, but by statute, and I am perfectly happy to support what he said on that, too.
	As for what the hon. Gentleman said about the High Court, I do not wish to repeat what was said in a previous debate. His proposal might be putting too much of a burden on High Court judges, but this is a different case from the one in the previous debate; there might be a case for saying that instances of sensitivity would be involved where someone defies a court order and the appeal might, thus, be more appropriately heard at a higher level than a simple fixed penalty notice matter would be.
	I am very happy with the way in which this debate has panned out. The starting point was not right, had many difficulties and was inadvertently threatening. Nevertheless, some of the remedies suggested from various parts of the House turned out to be worse than the disease. I am glad that we have ended up at a point where we can all agree that the regulation being proposed is proportionate and right.

Michael Wills: That has cheered me up immensely, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall give him some further comfort, but he will have to wait a bit for it, because I wish to deal first with the two sets of Government amendments. As hon. Members have said, they significantly overhaul the commission's powers of entry in schedule 1, and I believe they will be universally welcomed by the House.
	Government amendment 11 replaces paragraph 1(5) to new schedule 19A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—that new schedule is contained in schedule 1 to this Bill—with new paragraph 1A. The new paragraph differs from paragraph 1(5) by specifying a more restricted list of organisations and individuals to whom the commission's powers of entry and inspection for the purposes of carrying out its functions will apply—the list includes registered political parties, recognised third parties, permitted participants in a referendum, members associations and any former member of any of those categories. The power can be exercised by the commission for the purposes of carrying out its functions, but it does not authorise the use of force to enter premises.
	As hon. Members have said, the effect of the amendment is that the commission will not have the power to enter the premises of the following: candidates at an election; election agents; permitted participants; and regulated donees, including MPs—with the exception of members associations. The financial affairs of members' associations are likely to be more complex than those of regulated individuals, so retaining the extension to the existing power in section 146(3) of PPERA in relation to this group will help the commission to ensure transparency in supervising its activity. The provision has been amended to remove Members of Parliament from the scope of the power, but I must make it clear that this does not create any specific exclusion for House of Commons offices, and that reflects the approach towards this power taken by the 2000 Act and the approach taken towards powers of entry more widely in legislation. Should the commission require entry to a parliamentary office—for example, where a party has chosen to keep its records in a Member's office or a member's association has been run from a Member's parliamentary office—it advises that it would seek access only through the appropriate channels, and in the House of Commons, that would be through the Speaker.
	We believe that it is important to retain this limited power of entry for the commission to enter premises and inspect documents for the purposes of carrying out its functions. Although the commission has generally relied on voluntary disclosure and consensual meetings to discuss and review financial information, having this supervisory power, in itself, may have been an effective backstop in helping to ensure that supervised individuals comply with regulatory requirements. For the avoidance of doubt, may I emphasise that the commission's power in schedule 1 to the Bill to require the disclosure of documents relating to income and expenditure from all supervised individuals, including regulated donees, will remain?
	The amendment will largely restore this power to the equivalent provision in the 2000 Act, although there are two sensible and limited changes to the existing powers. First, the power will be available in relation to members' associations, as I have explained. Secondly, it will be available in relation to organisations or individuals who formerly used to fall within any of the categories that I have mentioned—those listed in new paragraphs 1A(a) to (d). This latter change brings the power into line with the existing power under the 2000 Act to request documents that applies to former members of the appropriate categories. We see no sensible reason for the existing anomaly between the two powers to seek information.
	Our approach will also help to prevent a situation in which the commission has to cease to examine an organisation's affairs midway through a compliance check simply because the organisation has taken steps to remove itself from one of the categories subject to the power. Hon. Members will recall that we took steps in Committee to help to ensure that this power would be exercised reasonably by tabling a Government amendment to prevent the commission from using its routine monitoring powers of entry in connection with an investigation, and that safeguard remains in place. The commission have provided assurances that they expect to use the power very rarely.
	Amendments 12, 16, 18 and 21 are consequential and simply seek to remove all references to paragraph 1(5) from new schedule 19(a) and replace them with a reference to the new paragraph 1(a).
	I hope that the House will agree that these amendments address the concerns raised extensively on Second Reading and in Committee about the commission's powers of entry and inspection. I believe that they do so without compromising the commission's essential ability to carry out its work effectively, and I hope that they will be welcomed by the House.
	Government amendments 13 to 15, 17, 19, 20 and 22 make changes to the provisions on the commission's powers of entry by warrant. These amendments are also intended to address concerns that were widely expressed on Second Reading and in Committee, and I hope that they will also be welcomed by the House. The commission has indicated that it would be content to consider an alternative approach to the provision in the Bill that would enable them to apply for a warrant to enter premises provided that it met its objective of being empowered to investigate more effectively. We believe that the proposals contained in Government amendment 13 will meet that objective, but will also meet all the concerns that have been expressed about the existing provisions at various stages of the Bill's progress.
	The proposals have been discussed with the commission at all stages of their development. Government amendment 13 would remove the power set out in paragraph 3 of new schedule 19(a), which enables the commission to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to authorise entry and search of premises in connection with an investigation. It would replace that power with a power enabling the commission, in cases in which a person has already refused to provide documents, to apply to the court for an order to require disclosure of the previously requested documents in order to enforce the commission's original notice. The court which issues an order may not, when making an order or dealing with any failure to comply with that order, use this power to authorise the commission to enter premises to obtain the documents. This is the key difference between the warrant power and this new proposal, and I want to be as clear as I can about that.
	The court order is intended to add an extra and very important layer of compulsion to the commission's power to request documents. It is vitally important that the initial request from the commission is not the end of the story for someone who has documents that are relevant to an investigation. Equally, as Members on both sides of the House have made clear, it is important that we do not go too far in the opposite direction. We have listened very carefully to the concerns that have been expressed about the warrant power, and that is why, on reflection, we have decided to remove the court's ability to issue a warrant to authorise entry of premises by the commission. It is important that the new power is subject to suitable and appropriate safeguards.
	A court order would not be issued automatically on an application being made by the commission. The commission's representative must first demonstrate on oath that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been an offence or a contravention under the Act; that there are documents referred to in the disclosure notice that have not been produced; that these documents are reasonably required by the commission for the purposes of investigating the suspected offence or contravention; and that the documents are in the custody or under the control of the person against whom the order is issued. Those are extensive safeguards. When seeking an order, the commission will serve notice on the individual or organisation against whom the order is sought in order to ensure that they are represented at the hearing of the application for the order, and the court will consider the application under ordinary court rules governing applications for court orders, and it will be able to decide whether oral or written evidence is most appropriate in each case.
	Failure to comply with a court order would constitute contempt of court. It may be a criminal offence under paragraph 13, but the same breach cannot be penalised by proceedings brought both for contempt and for the paragraph 13 offence. If someone refused to comply with the court order and the commission took the view that it was necessary to obtain the documents for an investigation to continue, it would have no power to seek entry on its own account in order to obtain documents. Instead, in practice, the commission would, if it felt it appropriate to do so, bring the matter to the attention of the police who would consider whether they were willing to use their power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to apply to obtain a warrant. That would be a matter for the police to consider in individual cases.
	As now, the commission would not be able to rely on the police to obtain a warrant to search premises in connection with offences that are triable summarily only, as the power to apply for a warrant under PACE does not apply to such offences. Offences under the 2000 Act that are triable summarily only are set out in schedule 20 of that Act. Examples include section 146 offences of intentional obstruction of a person seeking to enter premises on behalf of the commission, and section 148 offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to provide information reasonably required by the commission.
	I have gone into these matters at some length because I know how important they are to the House. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by the safeguards that I have set out. I am sure, however, that hon. Members will agree that the investigatory powers that are contained in amendment 13 are necessary to enable the commission to regulate effectively. Of course the corollary of that is that the Electoral Commission must use the investigatory powers at its disposal responsibly. It is for that reason that we tabled several amendments in Committee to require the commission to issue guidance on its use of its investigatory powers and to provide information in its annual report on that usage. Those safeguards remain in place.
	Amendments 14, 15, 17, 19 and 22 are consequential, arising from amendment 13. Amendments 14 and 15 replace references to documents taken possession of, as under a warrant, with a reference to documents delivered in compliance with a court order. Amendments 17, 19 and 22 replace references to a warrant with references to an order. Amendment 20 removes the requirement for the commission to provide information about its use of warrants in the guidance that it is required to issue on the use of its investigatory powers.
	I will now turn to amendments (a) and (b) to Government amendment 13. Government amendment 13 would remove the powers of search and entry by warrant and replace it with a power for the commission to seek a court order requiring enforcement of its disclosure notice. The effect of amendment (a) would be that consideration of the commission's application seeking a court order to enforce its disclosure notice would rest with the High Court rather than with a county court as Government amendment 13 provides.
	I appreciate the reasoning behind this amendment, which is to ensure that applications for court orders are subject to thorough scrutiny at the appropriate level of jurisdiction. As we have discussed, it is standard practice for orders to enforce disclosure notices in civil cases to be issued by a county court, which is why the clauses have been drafted in this way. Although now overtaken by Government amendment 13, I appreciate that in Committee the Government committed to amending the Bill so that the power to issue a warrant to authorise entry and search of premises would rest with High Court rather than with a justice of the peace. However, orders for disclosure of documents by their nature are more likely to be sought than warrants for entry of premises, and so any changes to standard practice may have an unnecessary impact on the work load of the High Court unnecessarily. If the result of that were to be to prolong the time period between the date on which an application is made and that on which it is considered, I can see two obvious disadvantages. One, it might slow down commission investigations, which could impact on the effectiveness of those investigations. Secondly, there might also be adverse consequences for those under investigation. The longer it takes for an order to be issued, the longer the investigation is likely to be and the greater the uncertainty for the individuals or organisations concerned.
	There could be other unforeseen consequences in providing for orders in these cases to be issued by the High Court. I will want to look into that. But, as I say, I understand the reasoning behind this amendment and I am prepared to consider further whether it would be helpful and practicable to accept it. We would need to consult interested parties, including the Lord Chief Justice, before we can make an informed decision whether it would be appropriate for consideration of these applications to rest with the High Court. I agree therefore to consider the amendments, but I cannot at this stage make any firm commitment one way or the other about whether we will be able to take them forward.
	I want to resist amendment (b) to Government amendment 13, which would require those served with a disclosure notice made by a county court under the power set out in paragraph 3 of new schedule 19A to comply with the terms of that order within 28 days. I notice that the intent is very similar to that of amendment 50. Of course, I agree that those who are subject to a disclosure order need to be given time to comply with it and that they need to know how long that period is, but that is why Government amendment 13 provides for a disclosure order to specify a reasonable period of time within which the person to whom the notice is given must comply.
	I believe that when making a disclosure order, it is appropriate to give the court the flexibility to vary the period of compliance depending on the individual facts of each particular case and the nature of the application made by the commission. For example, the court might need to allow a longer period for the production of documents or the provision of information in some instances than in others. However, when a request is time-critical—particularly when there is concern that the success of an investigation might be prejudiced if it is not obtained speedily—a period of less than 28 days might be appropriate. A longer period might be appropriate when a large amount of documentation is sought. Given the range of documents and information that could be covered by a disclosure notice, I do not think that a one-size-fits all approach is suitable and therefore I do not think that we should tie the court's hands in the way that the amendment proposes.
	I do not think that there should be any concern that failing to accept the amendment will cause uncertainty about the time periods within which a person served with an order must comply. The Government amendment requires that the order itself must stipulate the time for compliance. That will be a specific date and it will be clear to the person served with the order. I hope, for those reasons, that the hon. Member for Huntingdon will withdraw amendment (b).
	I now turn to Opposition amendment 57, which is now redundant as we have removed from the Bill the provision that would have allowed the commission to apply to a court for a warrant to search premises in connection with an investigation. Amendment 52 would require a person entering premises under the power of entry set out in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to be either an employee at managerial level at the Electoral Commission or a police officer. As I said in Committee, authorisation of the use of the power by a manager at the commission would in practice be embedded in the commission's operation of the power.
	I would expect entry under the power of entry that the commission is granted in the Bill—it is largely the same as its existing power of entry, which, incidentally, it has never used—to take place very rarely. For that reason alone, I expect that senior management would be fully involved in any decision to use the power. However, to set out in statute that an entry could be carried out only by a senior manager would be unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible. In order to fulfil its duties effectively, the commission must have the ability to delegate entry and inspection duties to staff below managerial level, where appropriate.
	The commission, we are assured, has absolutely no intention of using the power lightly. We know that it is aware that entering premises is a significant step and it will operate the power responsibly, as it has done with the existing power to date. We can be confident, I think, of that. In addition, we must keep in mind that the commission will have to exercise its powers in a way that is compatible with rights under the European convention on human rights—including article 8, which is the right to respect for private life—and that is compatible with general principles of public law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 5, in schedule 3, page 38, line 21, at beginning insert—
	'(A1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act (prohibition on accepting donations from impermissible donors), at the end of sub-sub-paragraph (7)(c) there is inserted ", or a compliance officer appointed by the holder of a relevant elective office to act on his behalf."'.
	Government amendments 29 and 30.

Michael Wills: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House will recall that we discussed the purpose of the new clause at some length in Committee— [Interruption.]

Michael Wills: The new clause will be of interest to Members because it is designed to make their lives a little easier. After the discussions about whether a compliance officer should be able to be appointed, we do not think the new clause will allow a holder of elective office to appoint a person to act as a compliance officer for the purpose of ensuring compliance with controls in the 2000 Act. There is nothing in that Act to prevent the appointment of an individual to help with compliance, but the clause ensures that such appointments can be made on a statutory basis.
	We do not consider it appropriate to compel holders of elective office to appoint a compliance officer. That would be an unnecessary burden on Members, where there may have been no need in the first place. However, as I said in Committee, we recognise that some will wish to make such appointment. The clause as drafted is permissive and allows a holder of elective office to notify the Electoral Commission that they have appointed a compliance officer.
	We have set out the details of what is required in proposed paragraph 18. It is self-explanatory, so I will not deal with it in detail— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huntingdon will be even more relieved when I tell him that the clause adopts a common-sense approach. It does not absolve office-holders from responsibility for compliance with their obligations under schedule 7 of PPERA. The question of who will be liable for a breach of the requirements for reporting on and handling donations will depend, as so often, on the facts of the case, but both the office-holder and the compliance officer may be subject to criminal sanction where there has been a failure to comply with their reporting requirements. The only exception—
	 Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 146.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 New clause 13 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Pete Wishart: The amendment, which unites all the minority parties in this House, stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and other colleagues across the House, and it should also include signatures from the Democratic Unionist party. We, the minority parties of this House, are in effect and in fact the Governments of the different legislatures across the United Kingdom. The amendment is self-explanatory. We want the Electoral Commission, in regulating across the United Kingdom, to recognise the new reality of the UK in 2009: the multi-party, multi-legislature UK that we currently experience. It is no good for it simply to reflect this House—the old tired Westminster solution of the two main parties, with the Liberals acting as a sop for all the other minority parties. The amendments try to define that new system.
	Let us take a cursory look around the United Kingdom. In this House, we have a majority Labour Government; in Scotland, we have a minority SNP Government and in Wales and Northern Ireland, we have coalitions of different parties. Different parties are in power throughout the United Kingdom. In fact, the only two parties involved in this debate who are not in power anywhere in the UK are the Conservative and Liberal parties, yet they will have a political commissioner nominee for the new commission. That is totally unacceptable to us.
	If the Bill were just about this House, I would accept that what it proposed was the right way to proceed, given that we in the SNP are seven Members out of 646 Members of this House and all the minority parties combined amount to little more than 28 Members. If it were just about this House, having one political commissioner between the four parties would seem to be fair and reasonable, but the Electoral Commission has a remit beyond these green Benches. It serves all the legislatures, Parliaments and Assemblies throughout the United Kingdom, and the appointment of those political commissioners should adequately reflect and represent that.
	Let us look at the situation in Scotland a little more carefully. We are described as a minority party in this House, and I accept that with seven Members out of 646, that is the case. However, it is not the case in Scotland. We are the largest party in Scotland by seats and by votes. We are the Government of Scotland. If we look at the last two by-elections in Scotland, we find that Labour party won one—I see that the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) is in his place—and the SNP won one. The Conservatives narrowly held on to their deposit in one seat but lost it in the other. The Liberals lost both their deposits. Those parties are quickly becoming minority parties in Scotland, yet they will have a nominated political commissioner, who will be involved in regulating electoral law for the Scottish Parliament, while the party of Government in Scotland will not have such an appointee.
	That is clearly absurd, unfair and bizarre, and it is totally unacceptable to us. It is as if we were to say to the Labour party, "Let's have politically nominated commissioners, but you can't have one." That would be totally unacceptable to the Minister and his colleagues. I would wager that it would be unacceptable to the Conservatives were they to be told, "We're going to have politically nominated commissioners. The Labour party can have one, but sorry, Conservative party, you can't have one." I am sure that had the Labour and the Conservative parties been allowed to have politically nominated commissioners and the Liberal party had not, that would be totally unacceptable to the Liberals. They would be standing with me, full of indignation about what had been suggested. This debate is about fairness and what is right.
	I want to dispel the notion—we debated this in Committee at some length; I remember discussing it with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who I am sure is paying attention to everything that I am saying—that these politically nominated commissioners have nothing to do with the parties that are nominating them. What a lot of nonsense to suggest that they are somehow above politics and will be nominated by political parties only to give us the benefit of their experience and of their years in this House—"Aye, right", as we say in Scotland. They are there as political nominees from those political parties, and they will have a role to play for those parties.

Angus MacNeil: Would my hon. Friend agree that if his proposal is not taken up, it will, sadly, look like a shoddy carve-up from Westminster once more?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can see the Minister itching to get to his feet to explain that, and waving to his civil servants to assist him in that task.
	We are in a difficult situation and I do not envy the position of the hon. Member for Gosport. I would, perhaps, give him one little bit of advice, if he does not mind. The largest minority party in this House is the Democratic Unionist party, with nine Members of the House of Commons. Next, comes the Scottish National party with seven, then we have the SDLP and Plaid Cymru with three each. If I were the hon. Gentleman, my first port of call when deciding who the fourth commissioner should be would be the largest party. I know, as an SNP Member that if I were in the largest minority party and it was passed over for that role, I would be very disappointed. We would expect it to be a job for the largest party.
	What is likely to happen? If the hon. Member for Gosport is approaching this matter as I know he will—diligently and with due care and attention—that position should be given to the Democratic Unionist party. There is no other way to deal with the matter than to award the role to the largest party. But what a shoddy way to do it—to award it to that party just because it is the largest. We would expect a member of the Democratic Unionist party, from another Parliament, to be our representative on the Electoral Commission. That is not good enough. It is nonsense, and an alternative must be addressed as a priority by the Minister.
	At stake is the credibility of the Electoral Commission to do a job that does not just reflect this House, but the reality of a multi-party, multi-legislature United Kingdom. That is the task and the test of these amendments. We will press the matter to a vote, and we encourage hon. Members who believe in fairness and who think that the whole UK should be recognised to support us. I am sure that if hon. Members consider the matter properly and carefully, we will get that support.

Angus MacNeil: Perhaps I have stopped the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but would he happy to see a commission without a Labour representative or a Labour appointee?

Gavin Strang: Quite frankly, if there were only two or three, it would not be earth-shattering. But having said that, I think that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire made a good case about the difficulty in appointing the fourth commissioner. There is no question about that. I must confess—perhaps this is a dangerous thing to say—that I had assumed that the fourth commissioner might well be a nationalist, either Scottish or Welsh. However, it is obviously not intended that it always would be, and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire made that case very well. Obviously Northern Ireland is a very important part of the UK, and inevitably it must be represented. He has encouraged us to consider the matter, and I hope that the Government will listen. There could be a commissioner from Northern Ireland, which is very different from the mainland in some respects.
	There is a case for considering the fourth commissioner, because with due respect to the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers), who will state his position shortly, if Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberals are going to have representatives, it seems difficult to imagine how one person can represent the minority parties. An interesting case has been made about that.

Andrew MacKinlay: How does the Chairman personally envisage the committee going about making the choice? Let us assume that all the numerically minor political parties nominate sensible, qualified people. It beggars belief that there is some fair way of choosing. Frankly, a lottery would be fairer and it would have some logic. How does the hon. Gentleman envisage approaching the matter? I am genuinely bewildered and fascinated to know how, under his stewardship, he would choose between the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and so on. How would he do it?

Peter Viggers: First, the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee is technically the Speaker. He is not always present, but he is technically the Chairman of the committee. The Electoral Commission was created with the intention of its being independent, but it has to be responsible for pay and rations to somebody. The House decided that the "somebody" would be the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, and that it would seek to carry out its duties fairly and responsibly. To date, I have heard no criticism that the Speaker's Committee is partial or unfair. Yes, a heavy duty is placed on the Speaker's Committee, and it will fulfil it as fairly and properly as possible.

Andrew MacKinlay: We have every confidence in the desire of our friends and colleagues to be impartial—no one has suggested otherwise—but how do they demonstrate that? The hon. Gentleman has avoided that question. He has not said how, under his stewardship or direction, or through working with the Speaker, the committee would embark, in the little garret room in which they meet late at night, on resolving the matter. Would members discuss the person's qualities? Would they have a secret ballot? Would they say, "Well, it's the DUP's turn, and the DUP represents quite a different electoral tradition from that in Scotland, England and Wales"? That is true, incidentally—they have some strange practices over there, which are accepted by custom and practice—

Peter Viggers: Much of the legislation that deals with the Electoral Commission is not clear. Several matters have been left incomplete in specifying how exactly it and the Speaker's Committee will operate. It has been necessary over the years for the Speaker's Committee to be a little creative in its operation. I am sure that the committee will listen carefully to everything that has been said in the House and will take account of it.
	With those few words, I ask hon. Members to support the amendments.

Alan Whitehead: I am concerned by the way in which we appear collectively to portray what the political commissioners will do on the Electoral Commission. I hope that no one envisages that the politically nominated electoral commissioners—not politicians on the Electoral Commission because they cannot be that—will fervently bat for their side all the time they serve on the commission. If that were so, it would appear not only to undermine what the Electoral Commission is about, but further to undermine—if anybody wanted to do this—how members of the public perceive those who hold political office generally. As far as I understand it, the whole idea behind putting political nominees on to the Electoral Commission is to do with the nature of the democratic process and all that goes with it, which includes how the Electoral Commission responds, and the idea that that body should have serving on it a number of people with political experience in general who can relate that experience to how it works.

Alan Whitehead: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. However, all of us, both in this House and in the Parliaments and Assemblies in the UK, are in the difficult position between, on the one hand, being perceived as perhaps acting unfairly in respect of how those people are placed on the Electoral Commission in the first place and, on the other hand, being perceived as simply pursuing party, partisan advantage, by placing people on the Electoral Commission in order to fight the corner of our parties. That is completely against what we should be trying to do, as far as political appointments to the Electoral Commission are concerned.
	I would be with the hon. Gentleman more, on the basis of the logic that perhaps all the Parliaments and Assemblies of the UK should nominate a number of people to the Electoral Commission to serve as political representatives. Under those circumstances, if it so happened that the outcome was that there were no Labour representatives from among those who had been nominated, I for one would not be unhappy, because they would have been nominated by the Parliaments and Assemblies of the UK. As matters stand, it appears that we are nowhere near what I would consider to be an ideal outcome, which relates to what the job to be done should be and how it ought to be perceived as being done. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's formulation would overcome the problem of what it might look like to have politically partisan representatives on the Electoral Commission, rather than those who will be there for the advancement of the commission.

Alan Whitehead: By referring to the word "representation", my hon. Friend has, if anything, underlined the problem that we face of how to make the appointments. The hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers), who represents the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, drew attention to the fact that the committee does not have a Labour party majority and the fact that not every party is represented on it. The Standards and Privileges Committee does not have majority Labour representation—it has more than Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members; it has a Welsh nationalist Member, too. But do we consider the purpose of all those people on the Standards and Privileges Committee to be to fight the corner for their party? Clearly not, as far as what they do for this House is concerned.

Alan Whitehead: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been following closely what I was saying. As far as this House and the other Assemblies and Parliaments of the UK are concerned, we need to make it clear that the way in which we nominate people is not seen simply as people wishing to fight their party political corner in the Electoral Commission. In order to make that clear, we need to confront the question of how we can have adequate representation and fairness in the nomination process.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made a suggestion that could, as other hon. Members have pointed out, lead to what would broadly be perceived as an unfair outcome. That seems to be the way we are going. My suggestion is that we either seek nominations from all the Parliaments and Assemblies or go with the proposal from the Speaker's Commission to find a system whereby the fairness of the nomination can be underpinned by the way in which the nominations are made.

Jim Devine: I am disappointed that the hon. Lady has not nominated me. It is, however, a sad indictment of parties in this place that they think that the people of Britain are sitting around tonight watching this debate to find out who will be the nomination to this body of electoral administration. People are not going to be saying that we are unfair: we are giving a say to parties that represent 20-odd out 650, which I think is fair. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Michael Wills: I want to make a few more points. After that I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I suspect that I have already heard what he wishes to say
	In trying to right what they see as this fundamental wrong in our constitutional arrangements, Scottish National party Members are opening the door to unwelcome consequences. Unfortunately, their amendments are predicated on premises that feed public cynicism about politicians. It is profoundly wrong to base our legislation on the premise that political parties are incapable of nominating people with political experience who will not then act in the public interest.

Pete Wishart: This has been a good and interesting debate, containing some valuable contributions—until we reached those from the Government and Opposition Front-Benchers, when it started to get disappointing. We have a situation in which the largest party in Scotland, by votes and seats awarded, will have no input on electoral regulations for elections in Scotland, and that is totally unacceptable to our party.

Pete Wishart: The Minister will know that that was not an answer and that he does not know how the fourth commissioner will be determined—nobody knows. This is a total mess, but I propose a solution. I get the sense from the rest of the House that a threshold of 15 parliamentarians will not be acceptable, so I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment containing that proposal. However, I hope that other hon. Members will support the principle that the other legislatures in the United Kingdom are important and must be taken into account. That is a challenge to hon. Members here this evening. I know about the support of the Liberals, who believe that the other Parliaments are important, that we live in a multiparty democracy and that we are now in a different type of United Kingdom. The challenge is for other hon. Members: do they recognise that or do they not? Are we to have the stable, closed-door Westminster wheelings and dealings? Is it all about the green Benches here or is it all about the new reality of the United Kingdom?

Alan Reid: If the Government are considering the communications allowance used by Members of this House, can they also look at similar allowances used by those in devolved Parliaments or Assemblies? For example, at the last general election, my opponent was a Conservative list MSP, and it would be unfair if a candidate in such a position was allowed to use the Scottish Parliament equivalent of the communications allowance. All the Parliaments' communications allowances need to be looked at.

Francis Maude: I shall simply cite the Justice Secretary when that matter was raised in a debate a little more than a year ago. He said that what mattered was that a donor was legal and permissible under legislation that he had piloted through Parliament. He also said that an individual's tax status was a matter for that individual.
	I welcome the Government's deathbed conversion and I am grateful for it. I stress the point that I made in my intervention on the Minister. It is essential that the House should provide for preventing the use of allowances by incumbent Members of Parliament to promote themselves proactively, whether through newsletters or direct, unsolicited mail, to constituents during an election period. If the provision is to be fair and democracy is to work properly, there must be absolute symmetry. It would be outrageous to place statutory constraints on candidates' spending out of money that they have raised privately while Members of Parliament continued to be able to spend taxpayers' money on promoting themselves in their constituencies.
	I did not hear from the Minister with the clarity that I sought the commitment that the new clause would not commence without a cast iron resolution of the House to prevent the use of the allowances for such proactive purposes.

David Howarth: I am very glad to welcome the demise of clause 11, as it did not produce the answers, which many hon. Members were looking for, to a number of problems. Basically, there are two problems, although they are different. One is the Lord Ashcroft problem, which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned. It arises when money is thrown at constituencies from a centrally raised fund. The second problem is what might be called the Zac Goldsmith problem, which is where a very wealthy candidate spends money on promoting himself. These two separate problems cannot be solved using the same provision. All through this debate, we have been dogged by the problem of trying to achieve two different things with one suggested mechanism.
	The mechanism now being proposed in place of triggering is certainly better than triggering, which never really worked. It simply resulted in a lot of angry letters being exchanged between agents, with one accusing another of having started election expenses and then getting a letter back— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) says that it did work. It worked in one sense, in that it represented a kind of background threat, but people who were brazen just got away with it anyway.
	The triggering mechanism also led to a number of straightforward evasions, such as calling oneself a prospective parliamentary candidate, a parliamentary spokesperson or the editor of the newsletter—[Hon. Members: "Who would do that?"] I have no idea who would do that kind of thing, but those were all well-known evasions. The process became a laughing stock. The attempt to bring it back was an attempt to solve both the problems that I have just mentioned but, in the end, it was not going to work. A number of meetings took place between experts and the Electoral Commission, and the commission tried to put forward draft guidance, but it became very clear that, as a practical matter, this was not going to work.
	We have now come back to the suggestion, which I think was originally made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton), of having a fixed date from which there would be a period of pre-election control on candidates' spending, and having a second period of controlled candidates' spending following the dissolution of Parliament. That is workable. I do not think that it causes the problem that triggering has—namely, that it cannot be made to work in practice—but it has serious flaws that will have to be thought about as the Bill goes through the House of Lords.

David Howarth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but those amendments are technically deficient in an important way, and would not achieve what he wants them to, because he has not changed the start date. Unfortunately, they would keep the start date of 1 January in the Bill. Although there is a lot of merit in what his amendments say about spreading out the period, and about making things smoother in regard to the number of months, they would not work as a practical suggestion— [ Interruption. ] Does the Secretary of State want to intervene?
	I want briefly to go through the defects in the existing proposal. It deals only with individual spending and not with party spending, and it gives the governing party, which knows the date of the general election, an unfair advantage. That really needs to be sorted out. The percentages in the Bill sort of deal with that point, but they do not go far enough.
	Finally, and most importantly, the proposal does not deal at all with third-party expenditure. It deals only with expenditure by candidates and agents, and not with third-party spending on behalf of candidates. I hope that the Minister will at least have time to deal with that last point.

Michael Wills: In the few remaining seconds, I want to pick up on some of the points that have been raised in this important discussion. Regulated matters will be treated in exactly the same way in the pre-dissolution and post-dissolution periods. We considered the 50-month period that has been proposed by various Members, but we rejected it because we believe that it would increase uncertainty for candidates to an unacceptable extent. Interestingly, the Electoral Commission has clearly stated its support for a start point of 55 months. It does not support amendments proposing a start point of 50 months because it, too, believes that that would increase uncertainty to an intolerably high level.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) has made important contributions today and in Committee. He said that he assumed that new legislation would come forward in the next Parliament, but he would be rash to make such an assumption. It is absolutely fundamental that any action at all in this area should proceed on the basis of cross-party consensus. We believe that this Bill has now reached that point, and we hope that hon. Members will support the new clause.
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 New clause 17 added to the Bill.
	 The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Amendment made: 38, page 9, line 15, leave out Clause 11.— (Mr. Wills).
	 Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Stewart Jackson: I am delighted to have secured this debate on neighbourhood renewal funding in the Millfield and New England areas of Peterborough. These older city residential areas existed before Peterborough was designated as a new town and before the Peterborough development corporation was established in 1968, and they have a proud working class heritage, having been home to many families working on the railways or at Perkins Engines—skilled craftsmen, artisans, practical people and their kith and kin.
	It was the 1850 opening of the Great Northern railway's main line from London to York that transformed Peterborough from a market town to an industrial centre. Relatively little urban development took place to the west of the railway, but the marshalling yards and other installations were labour-intensive and housing for railway workers and their families spread from the vicinity of the North station almost to Walton. The Great Northern built an entire community here, which provided much of the labour for the enormous marshalling yard and associated engine sheds close by.
	For almost 55 years the North ward on Peterborough city council has been represented by the indefatigable Charles Swift, OBE, who lives in Scotney street in New England and was once the Labour leader of the city council, but is now robustly independent, and his colleague, Councillor Keith Sharp. Only two weeks ago, Charles featured in the Peterborough  Evening Telegraph bemoaning the state of his home area, under the headline "Peterborough is decaying in front of our eyes."
	My constituents living in the Millfield and New England areas of Peterborough have been witness to the steady decline of their neighbourhood for a number of years, but the increased pressures of the current economic climate—in particular, the recent spate of job losses in the city, business closures, crime and, among other things, the increased pressures of immigration—have highlighted the very real difficulties these communities are facing. In particular, the huge and unprecedented influx of EU migrants into the city since May 2004, estimated by the East of England regional assembly two years ago at more than 16,000 individuals, most of whom have congregated in this area, has put significant strain on the delivery of public services.
	The situation has been exacerbated by heavy job losses across Peterborough over the last 12 months in good-quality, blue-chip companies—400 jobs at Hotpoint, 450 jobs at Perkins Engines and 500 at Freemans Catalogues. In particular, in the area east of the north-south Lincoln road—from the junction with Dogsthorpe road up to the A47 Soke parkway, and including the northern third of the Central ward—the environmental deterioration of what were once pleasant streets of owner-occupied properties, well tended and demonstrating an obvious element of neighbourhood pride, has unfortunately given rise to an increasing number of often scruffy, unkempt properties in multiple occupation with neglected gardens at front and back, physical deterioration and environmental blight including noise nuisance, neighbour disputes over matters such as refuse collection, and more general antisocial behaviour.
	I understand that last Thursday the Minister, in his capacity as Minister for community cohesion, was due to visit the New Link centre in Lincoln road, at the heart of the area. Had it not been for the inclement weather, he would have seen at first hand what I have described. When Charles Swift and I undertook a comprehensive walkabout across the North ward before Christmas, he showed me what he has labelled "grot spots". He has described the area and its ambience as "bedraggled and worn".
	Although Peterborough is to benefit from a number of regeneration projects—they include the redevelopment of Cathedral Square, the "carbon challenge town" on the south bank, the new North Westgate retail and housing development and the development of the station quarter over the next 10 years, and the opening of the new university centre later this year—a number of residents in Millfield and New England fear that the well-established residential areas outside the city centre will be overlooked rather than receive their fair share of both private and Government regeneration funding.
	It is appropriate to set these two specific localities within a wider economic and social context in the Peterborough sub-region. The Peterborough city council area has the highest unemployment among the nine sub-regions in the eastern region. The unemployment rates are, respectively, 7.3 per cent., with 1,847 male claimants, and 3 per cent., with 588 female claimants. The overall rate in the Peterborough constituency was 5.4 per cent. in December 2008.
	A lower proportion of people than across the other sub-regions have five GCSE passes at grades A to C, 11 per cent. lack basic literacy skills, 56 per cent. lack basic numeracy skills and 57 per cent. lack basic information and communications technology skills. The sub-region contains 10 "super output areas" that are among the most deprived in the region, suffering from education deprivation and low adult skills. We have the third highest proportion in the region of adults with no qualifications, and the third lowest proportion with degree-level qualifications. Our NEETs count—the number of young people not in work, education or training—is above the county and regional average. Our sub-region contains the greatest number of individuals receiving incapacity benefit, and half of them have been claimants for more than five years.
	The city ranks high when it comes to health problems such as diabetes, heart disease and asthma, and has the highest incidence in East Anglia of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Life expectancy in Peterborough is four years less than in Cambridge, just 31 miles away.
	The local area agreement and the Investing in Communities business plan for the city—the latter was published in 2007—focus on key target groups: people with disabilities, lone parents, those who are otherwise economically inactive owing to long-term illness, migrant workers and NEETs.
	Before I deal with the specific issues in the wards that make up Millfield and New England, it would be wise for me to record the efforts made by community-minded people locally to improve their own community. The city council is pioneering a neighbourhood management and renewal programme first developed in the Dogsthorpe ward, using money from the Stronger and Safer Communities programme. Greater Dogsthorpe Partnership has done excellent work under the leadership of Adrian Chapman and, subsequently, Graeme Clark to empower local residents to improve the quality of their lives through active participation and engagement.
	Last year the city council established the Millfield and New England task force. It is now developing an action plan geared towards housing and environmental issues, involving the use of legislation to improve problematic properties, issuing penalty notices for littering, investigation of fly-tipping, and proactive work regarding houses in multiple occupation. The urban regeneration company Opportunity Peterborough is taking the lead in trying to ensure the viability and long-term future of the Millfield local district shopping centre.
	I have the honour of serving on the Salvation Army good neighbours board of management, which is overseeing investment of formerly objective 2 moneys and now Investing in Communities funding. I pay tribute to Carol Bailey and Des Davis and all the staff, helpers and volunteers at the Salvation Army citadel at Bourges boulevard for their hard work and dedication in helping vulnerable people, particularly the large number of elderly people in New England.
	The Millfield and New England economic regeneration partnership—MANERP—under the chairmanship of Hema Patel is a grassroots organisation that fights hard to ensure that the area is not overlooked, by campaigning for city council days of action and appointing street leaders, and by monitoring houses in multiple occupation, the problems of unscrupulous landlords exploiting newcomers to the area and the challenges of living in a diverse population, as well as serious crime-related issues such as the growth of brothels and cannabis factories in the locality.
	Why is this area so deserving of attention? Not only does the area—the North ward west of Fulbridge road and the west of Park ward—suffer from endemic social problems as a result of the decline in manufacturing and manual trades and the growing culture of benefit dependency, but it has the feel of a community expiring on its feet. In the last year, HSBC has announced the closure of its branch in Millfield, the New England post office has been earmarked for closure and even St. Paul's church at the junction with St. Paul's road has been downgraded and will soon be forced to share a minister with St. Mark's church, which is much nearer the city centre, despite the sterling work of its stand-in priest in charge, Rev. Ron Watkinson, who provides both spiritual leadership and pastoral care to the parish.
	The North, Central and Park wards rank particularly highly in respect of the indices of deprivation in super output areas, many of which are ranked in the top 25 per cent. in the country. One super output area in the north of the Central ward is ranked in the top 16 per cent. most deprived in the UK.
	Mass and uncontrolled migration has had a major impact in damaging community cohesion, as well as leading to the physical degradation of parts of these residential areas as the character of the neighbourhoods has changed. It has had a negative effect on what is a low-skill and low-wage economy, affecting indigenous residents, and has, regrettably, caused welfare dependency to become even further entrenched. The number of working-age claimants on benefit across the city council area remained static at 15 per cent. between 2002 and 2007, and in the same period—a period of economic growth—the proportion of those in employment has declined from 77 per cent. to 74 per cent. For those in work, median gross weekly wages are falling, and they fell between 2006 and 2008. One in four of those living in the North ward suffers from a long-term illness, almost a quarter of residents are pensioners and one in 10 residents are unpaid carers for others.
	Let me now turn to the issue of crime, which is often linked to economic downturns and recessions. The most recent figures provided on a ward-by-ward basis by the northern division of Cambridgeshire constabulary—those for January 2009—show that in the North ward serious acquisitive crime is up 23 per cent. compared with the same period last year, and is up 10 per cent. in Park ward; violent crime is up 12 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively and antisocial behaviour is up 11 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively, while alcohol-related incidences are up by a staggering 156 per cent. in North ward and 159 per cent. in Park ward.
	I hope that the Minister understands the picture I reluctantly paint of a part—not, I hasten to add, a majority—of my constituency. I believe that owing to its unique set of circumstances—low skills, low educational attainment, worklessness, unprecedented mass immigration, struggling public services, declining housing stock and deprivation, poor health outcomes and welfare dependency—local agencies such as the East of England Development Agency, the primary care trust, the urban regeneration company and the local authority are, through lack of capacity, simply not able to deploy the financial and other resources they would like in order to tackle the intractable problems to which I have alluded.
	For that reason, New England and Millfield merit the Minister's serious consideration for funding under the auspices of the working neighbourhoods fund. In their November 2007 report, which was unimaginatively entitled "The Working Neighbourhoods Fund", the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions made the point that the fund
	"is not just about money. It is about new ways of working...targeting areas of high worklessness by devolving and empowering communities".
	Peterborough's new and developing neighbourhood management model would complement that approach.
	I contend that Peterborough will now meet the WNF funding criteria—particularly those relating to the benefit claim rate and employment rate—in a way that it may not have done under the previous criteria attached to neighbourhood renewal funding prior to April 2008, which focused on district-wide measures of deprivation indices. It was never equitable or sensible to exclude many authorities, such as Peterborough's, that have pockets of very severe deprivation at super output area level but fell short of the criteria. Peterborough's eligibility will be enhanced by the decision to include both jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefit in the funding criteria. I think those on both sides of the House welcome the greater devolution of this funding programme to local councils.
	Furthermore, in the interim, I ask the Minister to give his support to Peterborough city council's undertaking a neighbourhood renewal assessment of the distinct neighbourhoods of New England and Millfield—such an approach has been taken in respect of Barrow, Burnley, Liverpool and Rugby, for instance—on the specific basis of housing stress and multiple deprivation under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and subsequent regulations.
	The Minister has had to take in an awful lot of information. Clearly, he would have had the opportunity to make a visit last week to see things for himself—that might have assisted my case. The situation has become ever more pressing recently as a result of the redundancies that I mentioned. They have certainly had a considerable impact on the already difficult circumstances facing many of my constituents in these difficult economic times.
	The chairman of MANERP's cohesion sub-group, Marlene Coussell, said in 2007 that she felt saddened at how her neighbourhood had declined in the past 25 years. She said:
	"When I used to say I lived in Millfield, it was mentioned reverentially. But now, I get looks of pity. We are here to try to change those perceptions."
	I am realistic about the challenges we face and the chances of turning things around quickly, but I believe that if we can harness the energy and local knowledge of people in the community in developing their own solutions, we really will be able to improve the quality of life of individuals living in the deprived neighbourhoods of which I have spoken, many of whom live in a half life of benefit dependency, crime, ill-health and worklessness. Such a situation is both unfair and economically wasteful. It is socially destructive but it is not inevitable. I concede that this Government have done the right thing in refocusing regeneration moneys at the most local level, and I ask the Minister to do all he can to make sure that in my constituency the funds are directed where they are so desperately needed.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) for raising this important issue. The debate provides an opportunity to discuss not only the issues and the real challenges facing his constituents in the Millfield and New England areas of Peterborough, but the work under way to address those as part of a more coherent approach by local partners in the city.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the working neighbourhoods fund and made a plea for its money to be provided to those two areas. The WNF is targeted at 65 local authorities, all of which score more highly than Peterborough on the indices of multiple deprivation. The Government decided to focus these funds more tightly in light of the recommendations of the sub-national review of economic development and regeneration. There are no plans to revise the eligibility criteria or to increase the number of eligible authorities.
	I wish to add a couple of things, as we are on the WNF. Under the formula grant—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this in his short contribution—Peterborough received an increase of 6 per cent. in funding in 2008-09 and will receive more than generous inflation increases in 2009-10 and 2010-11. If one examines all the grants that Peterborough will receive in 2009-10, one will discover that an additional £11.5 million is being provided. The point is that, as important as the working neighbourhoods fund is to those deprived parts of the country—the 65 authorities that receive it—it is a fraction of the funding that Peterborough receives in the generous payments from the Government to the council and other key agencies.
	Peterborough is benefiting from a range of other Government policies, related interventions and funding to support the delivery of local ambitions. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for having the generosity to mention some of the work going on locally as a consequence of the Government providing local authorities with the tools and funding, all of which play a significant part in supporting the regeneration of neighbourhoods, through greater collaboration between local partners. Some important examples include £21.5 million growth area funding over the three years to 2010-11. There is £1.6million funding as part of the neighbourhood element of the safer and stronger communities fund. In Peterborough this will help Welland, Old Dogsthorpe, Bluebell, and part of the New England areas—about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned. An additional £21 million from the East of England Development Agency for regeneration projects in Peterborough will contribute to projects worth £100 million in total since 1999.
	The sum of £16.6 million from the region's Urban II programme is focused on nine wards in Peterborough city centre with high levels of unemployment linked to a lack of skills. On the Labour Benches, we appreciate the contributions made by Europe, and the European regional development fund finance has provided just over £7.8 million to help the hon. Gentleman's constituents. In addition, there have been funds for cohesion and preventing violent extremism for the period 2008-10, the latter totalling almost £765,000.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the robustness of the statistics. A combination of migration and growth has affected Peterborough recently, and we simply cannot wait for a census every 10 years. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the excellent work that is being done to improve the robustness of the figures and ensure that they reflect the real situation, rather than lagging behind.
	The issue is not only money, as important as that is. The new local area agreement has already benefited Peterborough by bringing about a more co-ordinated and collaborative approach to tackling the challenges facing the city, from delivering growth to reducing inequalities—and a wider ambition to be the UK's environment capital. Tools provided by a Labour Government are being used by a Conservative local authority to benefit the residents.
	The planned growth of the city will bring significant opportunities for Peterborough to help bring about transformation, including within neighbourhoods. The city is blossoming, despite the tough economic climate. Considering the circumstances—including the recession—things are going well. The leader of Peterborough city council since 2003, John Peach, says that there is more going on now than ever. He should know as he has been on the council ever since the unitary council came under Conservative control.
	It was not the hon. Gentleman's intention—and he was careful to emphasise that he was talking about part of Peterborough, not the whole city—to talk down Peterborough. The regional spatial strategy for the east of England identifies Peterborough as a key centre for development and change. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the successful growth of the city is an important factor in tackling deprivation and regenerating areas like Millfield and New England. Knitting together those two important agendas requires a strong partnership between all sectors and we believe that that can happen in Peterborough.
	I do not want to pretend that there are no challenges, and the hon. Gentleman was right to stress some that face Peterborough, which is growing faster now than at any time in the past 50 years. It faces two significant challenges: first, to close the gaps between the worst and best neighbourhoods; and, secondly, to deliver its ambitious plans for growth. The debate today, in my opinion, should be about how we collectively maximise the resources already available in the city to deliver an ambitious agenda for the future. By pooling intelligence and capacity between partners, engaging and empowering local communities and providing real opportunities for them to be a part of the future plans for transforming the city, we can make a difference. It is happening on the ground. Peterborough city council and its partners, including the business community and the public, through the Greater Peterborough partnership, drew up the sustainable community strategy with the vision of
	"A bigger and better Peterborough that grows the right way"—
	through substantial and "truly sustainable" growth.
	We need to strengthen the capability within Peterborough to secure additional funding, whether by attracting private sector investments through growth or improving its potential bidding credentials for competitive funding. It is right to focus on Millfield and New England. Many Labour Members entered politics to help those who were the most deprived in communities, and that is what social justice is about. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the ongoing challenges in Millfield and New England. I firmly believe that greater collaboration between service providers to tackle the underlying social and economic issues, continued education and awareness raising, ongoing enforcement and investigation work to deal with unscrupulous landlords and linking the growth plans with those for regeneration are more likely to secure a sustainable solution for the area.
	I am pleased to say that such an approach is already being used in Millfield and New England by Conservative Peterborough city council, through its neighbourhood approach across the city. I understand that that city council has led with a restructure of its services and that the new neighbourhood management model that is being implemented includes multi-agency delivery teams, which will be tasked with responding to local priorities identified by neighbourhood partnerships. That is an example of Government devolving power with additional funding devolved to communities, turning subjects into citizens and citizens into active citizens.
	Millfield and New England will form part of the central and east neighbourhood management area of Peterborough, which I think is a good thing. I would not want you to think, Mr. Speaker, that it has become a habit of mine to defend Conservative councils, but Peterborough city council is using the tools that we have given it and is working with appropriate partners to try to help neighbourhoods such as those identified by the hon. Gentleman, including Millfield. The scope of the work is also being expanded to cover New England.
	I am afraid that there is no time left for me to deal with all the housing issues referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but there are now city-wide grants available for assistance with repairs and to disabled residents. We are working to address the issues about houses in multiple occupation. The council has a city-wide tenancy relations officer and a private landlord accreditation scheme. The city council has submitted an application for additional licensing for houses in multiple occupation, too.
	The council is using the tools provided by the Government, and it is using the extremely generous record levels of investment that the Government have given it. I look forward to a bright future for Peterborough. Legislation based on the community empowerment White Paper will soon be considered in this House, after leaving the other place. There will soon be a joint inspectorate comprehensive area assessment, which will hold local authorities and, more widely, public sector partners to account on the delivery of local priorities.
	To summarise, let me reiterate the benefits of collaboration, alignment, and the targeting of resources by key partners in a way that engages local residents in making a difference to their areas. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to join me in congratulating the local authority and the many other partners and people who are working hard to improve the quality of life for those who live in Peterborough. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that the Government are supporting partners with a range of policies and initiatives geared towards greater flexibility, which will enhance delivery and enable Peterborough to realise its ambitions. Never in the history of this country have a Government done more during a recession or economic downturn than this Government. I hope that the people of Millfield and New England will see the fruit of that soon.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.